Neil Consultants, Inc. v. Lindeman ( 2006 )

No. 05-348
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA
2006 MT 80
_______________________________________
NEIL CONSULTANTS, INC.,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
KEN LINDEMAN,
Defendant and Appellant.
______________________________________
APPEAL FROM: District Court of the Eighth Judicial District,
In and for the County of Cascade, Cause No. ADV 2005-25
The Honorable Thomas M. McKittrick, Judge presiding.
COUNSEL OF RECORD:
For Appellant:
Ethan C. Lerman, Montana Legal Services Association, Helena, Montana
For Respondent:
Gregory G. Smith, Smith, Oblander & Mora, Great Falls, Montana
____________________________________
Submitted on Briefs: March 22, 2006
Decided: April 18, 2006
Filed:
______________________________________
Clerk
Justice John Warner delivered the Opinion of the Court.
¶1 Ken Lindeman (Lindeman) appeals from an Order of the Eighth Judicial District
Court, Cascade County, granting a motion for judgment on the pleadings filed by Neil
Consultants, Inc. (NCI). We affirm.
¶2 We restate and address the issue on appeal as follows: Did the District Court err in
granting judgment on the pleadings under Rule 12(c), M.R.Civ.P., to NCI?
¶3 NCI filed suit against Lindeman on January 6, 2005, to recover damages for
breach of contract and non-payment of an account stated. A response document filed pro
se by Lindeman stated in pertinent part:
In 1998 the project seemed to hold alot [sic] of potential. We accumulated
a sizable bill very quickly. Just to get the project on paper we were at
$8,960.00 Total money already committed without doing anything on the
actual project.
....
Being a man that tries to keep his word, I maid [sic] an attempt to make
arrangements, with Neil Consultants, on the ridiculous high cost of
transferring ideas to paper.
....
I have paid Neil Consultants in excess of $4,000.00 over the years. This
seems it should almost justify the dead project.
¶4 NCI moved for judgment on the pleadings on March 14, 2005, alleging that
Lindeman’s filing failed to either deny any of the material allegations in the complaint or
allege affirmative defenses to defeat the action. Lindeman failed to respond to this
motion. The District Court granted NCI’s motion, explaining “Lindeman’s Answer
2
failed to state a legal defense.” Judgment was filed on April 8, 2005, and this appeal
followed.
¶5 A successful motion for judgment on the pleadings, pursuant to Rule 12(c),
M.R.Civ.P., must establish that no material issue of fact remains and that the movant is
entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Paulson v. Flathead Conservation Dist., 2004
MT 136, ¶ 17, 321 Mont. 364, ¶ 17, 91 P.3d 569, ¶ 17. “The pleadings are to be
construed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, whose allegations are taken
as true.” Paulson, ¶ 17. Since a motion for judgment on the pleadings is decided as a
matter of law, we apply our standard of review for conclusions of law and determine
whether the district court was correct. Paulson, ¶ 17.
¶6 Lindeman argues on appeal that he presented a valid legal defense by stating that
the amount he paid was sufficient to pay for the work provided by NCI. Lindeman says
that this creates a dispute regarding the amount of money owed. He also argues that he
was denied the right to be heard and defend himself because of his “financial
disadvantage of not being able to afford legal counsel.”
¶7 We agree with the District Court that Lindeman failed to state a legal defense in
his answer. Rule 8(d), M.R.Civ.P., provides “Averments in a pleading to which a
responsive pleading is required, other than those as to the amount of damage, are
admitted when not denied in the responsive pleading.” NCI alleged breach of contract
and non-payment of an account stated by Lindeman. Lindeman simply responded by
mentioning “the ridiculous high cost of transferring ideas to paper.” He failed to allege
that the services were not performed or that the amount billed was incorrect in any way.
3
While pleadings are to be taken in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party,
Lindeman’s response did not dispute the amount of money owed.
¶8 We note that Lindeman was not denied the right to be heard and defend himself.
We have previously explained that, while pro se litigants may be given a certain amount
of latitude, that latitude cannot be so wide as to prejudice the other party, and it is
reasonable to expect pro se litigants to adhere to procedural rules. Greenup v. Russell,
2000 MT 154, ¶ 15, 300 Mont. 136, ¶ 15, 3 P.3d 124, ¶ 15. Lindeman’s filing of a
document in response to the complaint demonstrates his access to the Courts.
Additionally, he identifies no impediment beyond his pro se status that prevented him
from pleading a legal defense. Lindeman’s argument that he was denied access to the
Courts is not well taken.
¶9 Affirmed.
/S/ JOHN WARNER
We Concur:
/S/ PATRICIA COTTER
/S/ BRIAN MORRIS
/S/ JAMES C. NELSON
/S/ JIM RICE
4